Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXX

[Perch]

I think regardless of what period you're looking at you'd have to realize that sieges are impractical on both sides and neither one wants it to last longer than it needs to.

It's low intensity and has a high resource cost which is probably the worse combination. It's mostly psychological warfare so it's hard to make it interesting as encounters unless one is actively breaking a siege one way or the other.

The city in question is self sufficient. They could go on forever.

But it's also a trade hub so they don't want to lose money.

[stoutstien]

The city in question is self sufficient. They could go on forever.

But it's also a trade hub so they don't want to lose money.

That's always been the long and short of it. Even if those who are under siege have the technological advantage as far as defense and resources it's still a losing proposition as long as the siege is occurring. It's attrition in every form. Hunger and weather broke more sieges than arrows or walls.

There's also the fact that usually when it comes to sieges the point is not to destroy everything because the tactical location is what's important. I'm not saying that it was not brutally violent but it's not nearly as vicious as what Hollywood put it up to be because the whole idea was to basically waiting out the other side. Bribes and planted agents in the inside would be the biggest risk.

[PhoenixPhyre]

A question about various armors and their benefits, drawbacks, and general tradeoffs. NB: Yes, mixing them is anachronistic. That's already known. Assume that normal underlayment is worn in each case.

Threat-model: hand-powered weapons, including longbows. Generally small-unit combat or street fights, not formation fighting.

First up, the brigandine. As I understand it, this is also called a coat-of-plates, this armor consists of heavy layered cloth with small plates riveted between the layers.

Second: a breastplate, worn conquistador style (ie without significant arm/leg armor).

Third: various forms of lamellar armor, specifically the heavier mongol style.
-- Sub-question: How much of a difference in practice was there between the roman lorica segmentata, the stereotypical Japanese lamellar samurai armor, and the mongol lamellar?
-- 2nd sub-question: Is "This armor is made of metal strips or plates held together by leather cords. It generally covers only the torso, although a skirt of similar plates is often worn to cover the thighs." a fair description of the general style?

Things I'd like more information on--

1. Are there significant differences in protection between these three?
2. Are there significant differences in the restrictiveness/exhaustion factor of wearing them?
3. If one wanted to move quietly, is there a large difference in the effect of the armor on that (assuming you've taken precautions such as not wearing super shiny armor or carrying torches, etc).

[stoutstien]

A question about various armors and their benefits, drawbacks, and general tradeoffs. NB: Yes, mixing them is anachronistic. That's already known. Assume that normal underlayment is worn in each case.

Threat-model: hand-powered weapons, including longbows. Generally small-unit combat or street fights, not formation fighting.

First up, the brigandine. As I understand it, this is also called a coat-of-plates, this armor consists of heavy layered cloth with small plates riveted between the layers.

Second: a breastplate, worn conquistador style (ie without significant arm/leg armor).

Third: various forms of lamellar armor, specifically the heavier mongol style.
-- Sub-question: How much of a difference in practice was there between the roman lorica segmentata, the stereotypical Japanese lamellar samurai armor, and the mongol lamellar?
-- 2nd sub-question: Is "This armor is made of metal strips or plates held together by leather cords. It generally covers only the torso, although a skirt of similar plates is often worn to cover the thighs." a fair description of the general style?

Things I'd like more information on--

1. Are there significant differences in protection between these three?
2. Are there significant differences in the restrictiveness/exhaustion factor of wearing them?
3. If one wanted to move quietly, is there a large difference in the effect of the armor on that (assuming you've taken precautions such as not wearing super shiny armor or carrying torches, etc).

From my experience making and breaking them:

Sub question 1: can't commit as I have very limited experience with Western armor tech.

Subquestion 2: for a catch all it's fine. Might add a note that the plates themselves could be made with different materials such as leather, bone, or even wood

1- I'd say in skirmishing the brigandine armor is probably the winner but not by a huge amount. Overall it's affected this is not that far below all but late period plate. I rate it above most chainmail pattern as far as actually preventing harm.
The breastplate is better in formations and lamellar has similar protection but at the cost of weight and range of motion. It would be better if you can keep your distance though.

2. Fof me personally the weight distribution of brigantine makes it easier to wear which leads to less energy and focus wasted on thinking about it. Have had others who reported differently so I think it be a a body shape and tactics issue rather than the gear itself. My war coat weights about 11 pounds and my buddies metal lam is almost double that. He also uses a much longer weapon and doesn't move as much as I do. I prefer working under defense so my ring guard dagger is only 9 inches from the hilt.

3. You can blacken armor with potatoes. Hard to say but I have to vote for the simple jack plate. Again it is weight and lack of movement restrictions wins. I could probably walk across my wood in mine and be as quite as I like.

[Maat Mons]

My understanding is that coat of plates refers to an earlier forerunner of brigandine. A coat of plate would have a smaller number of larger plates, while brigandine would have more numerous, smaller plates. Also, a coat of plates would sandwich the plates between two layers of cloth, while brigandine would just have the plates attached to a single layer of cloth, cloth on the outside, plates on the inside.

Roman lorica segmentata is laminar armor, not lamellar armor. The difference is plate size. In laminar armor, long plates are used, which typically go a quarter of the way around the body. In lamellar armor, small plates are used, with each row consisting of quite a few plates.

Lamellar armor would be held together by chords, potentially leather chords, but not necessarily. The chords periodically required tightening and even replacement. If they were allowed to become loose, it decreased the protective value of the armor. Sometimes lamellar was coated in layers of lacquer to give it some stiffness, and thus some protection against blunt trauma. I have no idea how this interacted with tightening and replacing the chords.

[PhoenixPhyre]

My understanding is that coat of plates refers to an earlier forerunner of brigandine. A coat of plate would have a smaller number of larger plates, while brigandine would have more numerous, smaller plates. Also, a coat of plates would sandwich the plates between two layers of cloth, while brigandine would just have the plates attached to a single layer of cloth, cloth on the outside, plates on the inside.

Roman lorica segmentata is laminar armor, not lamellar armor. The difference is plate size. In laminar armor, long plates are used, which typically go a quarter of the way around the body. In lamellar armor, small plates are used, with each row consisting of quite a few plates.

Lamellar armor would be held together by chords, potentially leather chords, but not necessarily. The chords periodically required tightening and even replacement. If they were allowed to become loose, it decreased the protective value of the armor. Sometimes lamellar was coated in layers of lacquer to give it some stiffness, and thus some protection against blunt trauma. I have no idea how this interacted with tightening and replacing the chords.

I'll admit that I'm lumping together some things (coat of plates vs brigandine and lamellar vs laminar). At the level of detail I'm working with, I'm not sure (rebuttable presumption if someone gives evidence) that it matters. But thanks!

FYI, in this context the word is "cord", not "chord". The latter is (mainly, it also has geometric uses) used for sets of musical notes played together.

[Maat Mons]

Sorry, spelling has never been my strong suit, and spellcheck doesn’t help much with homophones.

The word for thigh protection that hangs down is tassets. If you’re going to mention them, you might also want to mention spaulders, which were essentially the same thing, except for the upper arms. Neither was by any means exclusive to lamellar armor. In fact, metal tassets, metal spaulders, and a metal cuirass collectively formed a what was called half armor, a popular item in some time periods. (A cuirass consists of a breastplate, an backplate, and maybe a gorget.)

[stoutstien]

My understanding is that coat of plates refers to an earlier forerunner of brigandine. A coat of plate would have a smaller number of larger plates, while brigandine would have more numerous, smaller plates. Also, a coat of plates would sandwich the plates between two layers of cloth, while brigandine would just have the plates attached to a single layer of cloth, cloth on the outside, plates on the inside.

Roman lorica segmentata is laminar armor, not lamellar armor. The difference is plate size. In laminar armor, long plates are used, which typically go a quarter of the way around the body. In lamellar armor, small plates are used, with each row consisting of quite a few plates.

Lamellar armor would be held together by chords, potentially leather chords, but not necessarily. The chords periodically required tightening and even replacement. If they were allowed to become loose, it decreased the protective value of the armor. Sometimes lamellar was coated in layers of lacquer to give it some stiffness, and thus some protection against blunt trauma. I have no idea how this interacted with tightening and replacing the chords.

All the forms of many plates held together by the is an absolute pain to repair due to this.

It's like trying to have a tight boot with a shoelace that had to be knotted together.

[Spiryt]

Roman segmentata wouldn't really be much alike the other two, different kind of construction.

Plates would be much larger, so keeping some kind of shape by their own, and thus require lacing and other connection only in few places.

Though apparently the weak point of such connection is that it's rather fragile, as well as all the fitting of the armor. After all, large parts of whole construction are being held in place by few cords and buckles. No under, or overlayer to hold al together, as well.

Might have been, perhaps, the reason why it fell out of use after some ~200, 300 years and never quite caught on outside of Rome.

Brigandine, seems to be roughly equivalent of plate armor in late medieval Europe and would have been used alongside it, by very wealthy people too, including princes and kings.

The reason of choosing it over plate cuirass and other palte elements are not exactly clear. Humprey Bardwick in his "A breefe discourse, concerning the force and effect of all manuall weapons of fire and the disability of the long bowe or archery, in respect of others of greater force now in vse (and so on....) " considers it strictly inferior to breastplate, but it doesn't seem to be that clear.

Statutes and Privileges of the Armourers and Scabbardmakers of the City of Angers give quite wonderfully specific mention that brigandine weighing about 12.5 to 13.5 kg should be proof against windlass crossbow, while ones weighing about 8.7kg to 9.7kg should be proof against hook crossbow or bow pulled by hand (" et traict d’archier").

Segmentata and lammellar would in general probably be much more prone to falling apart after significant portion of lacing had been destroyed (again, segmentata much more so). Heavy cloth or, more rarely, leather would hold everything together more effectively. On the other hand, that much cloth would be problem on its own, as far as water, dirt, sweat etc. go. Some Japanese source mentions that lammellar (presumably Japense kind, with LOTS of silk binding) would be vulnerable to elements and, apparently, vermin as well.

All of them would likely very noisy, all things considering. Lots of metal plates not fully connected, rubbing against each other and fabric or lacing.

The breastplate is better in formations

Not sure what do you mean by difference armor makes as far as formations go?

[tyckspoon]

If you're considering differences between the armors at a game-rule level, the differences are probably below the level of simulation you want to use. If you very roughly block out armors as 'not metal', 'flexible metal', and 'solid metal' then lamellar, brigandine, and plate pieces would all fall into 'solid metal' - they present a rigid metal surface to a strike, either because they just -are- that or because the way forces transfer causes the semi-flexible surface of a lamellar or brigandine to stiffen when you hit it. Lamellar would be more labor intensive to construct and maintain, and a plate cuirass could potentially benefit from contouring and shaping techniques to reduce the ability of foes to deliver a solid strike in ways you can't really do with multi-piece constructions (if you want it to be 'better', you could probably justify giving it the equivalent of +1 AC or something like a 'if the target number to hit you is met but not exceeded, suffer half damage' to represent the strike glancing off of a fluting or something.)

For encumbrance/stealthing purposes I would expect lamellar in general to be a bit worse than the others, because the way its constructed doesn't support its own structure as much - you'd need additional strapping/belts/attachment points to help keep all of the weight from being born on the wearer's shoulders and upper back, and because it's made of many individual pieces there's more points for things to catch on or the possibility that a dramatic movement will cause it to move against itself and sound out as individual lames clink or bounce against each other that you wouldn't get with the other armors. Certainly not impossible considerations to overcome, tho, and again they might be minor enough differences that you would not consider it worth the time to embed into game rules, but it's the kind of thing that lead people in real world to abandon lamellar as metallurgy and forging technology advanced to where large plates of quality steel were possible.

[stoutstien]

Breastplates worn without anything else besides maybe a helmet would give the lowest levels of protection of the three in skirmishing because the enemy you are looking at isn't likely going to be the one that hits you unless you well back from anyone who in swinging rang. In a formation that is a much lower risk as you have your lane so to speak.

If it was in addition to chain and piece armor it be different.

[Pauly]

Third: various forms of lamellar armor, specifically the heavier mongol style.
-- Sub-question: How much of a difference in practice was there between the roman lorica segmentata, the stereotypical Japanese lamellar samurai armor, and the mongol lamellar?
-- 2nd sub-question: Is "This armor is made of metal strips or plates held together by leather cords. It generally covers only the torso, although a skirt of similar plates is often worn to cover the thighs." a fair description of the general style?

Things I'd like more information on--

3. If one wanted to move quietly, is there a large difference in the effect of the armor on that (assuming you've taken precautions such as not wearing super shiny armor or carrying torches, etc).

Re different types of lamellar armor.
In Japanese history the plates got larger and the fittings tighter from the introduction of the armor through to the final forms before gunpowder made them irrelevant. The final forms of Japanese lamellar armor from the 1800s look to have similar protection to brigandine.
The main reasons to do so would either be ease of manufacture or an increase in protection. Having seen a lot of Japanese armor up close my conclusion is that it was done for increased protection. How much of a difference there was I can’t say, but it was sufficiently worthwhile to armorers to improve on previous generations.

The area of the body covered depends on the needs of the user. The most common lamellar armors from history were used by horse archers (eg Mongols, Samurai) who required higher degrees of movement and mobility than primarily melee fighters and thus had lower levels of protection. Roman/Byzantine cataphracts sometimes used lamellar armor instead of mail and those suits offered complete head to toe protection for the body.

Re movement. Movement in armor is not inherently loud or noisy. The problem is that added weight and bulk make it much harder to creep around without bumping into things or falling over. It’s the difference between creeping around the woods in your shirtsleeves and creeping around the woods with a 30kg backpack on. One is easy to be stealthy, the other is much harder.

[Spiryt]

The problem with various polearms is that a halberd with a back hammer could be indistinguishable from a pollaxe. Also saying "well halberd is... by definition" is a very dangerous position to take. There will be tons of halberds that do not particularly conform to your definition.

I've seen halberds that have such small axe parts one wonders how it's a halberd, like an early halberd might be almost a spade sized piece with a couple of points whereas a late halberd is a half-moon blade at the front with lots of spikes in all directions. And a late halberd might as well be a partizan as function goes.

The thing is for the people who used them it wasn't a huge deal exactly how the dimensions and features of a pole weapon made it categorically different from another, so they really didn't hugely make distinctions. Neither did they with swords, Oakeshotte is of course a modern scholar trying to fit everything into neat categories that none in the past had any thought to do because it would have been meaningless to them.

Well, of course it won't be fitting perfectly into categories, but it fits well enough. Just like Oaekeshott type XV swords almost never had any kind of fuller, since they were diamond sectioned, halberds were pretty universally one piece (earliest ones could be two piece - axe with spike and back pike), while poleaxes were universally composite weapons, with all striking or stabbing implements being separate things really. Halberds usually being visibly longer and also larger. Pollaxes being above ~2m meters even with long spike being very rare, while halbers could be close to 3m.

Later on ceremonial halbders in particular could indeed break this scheme, but for most part I don't think there are than many halberds preserved that break the mold.

This isn't even some modern take either, cause it doesn't seem like they were conflated that much in the period, especially that halberds were more of battlefield/plebeian weapons, while polleaxes were visibly nobleman's/dueling weapon. They are rarely seen in common soldiers hands in art in battlefield scenes etc.

Late period ceremonial/palace guard halberds indeed could skew the view quite a lot, but more "practical" ones from earlier period generally followed those "rules' pretty well.

The area of the body covered depends on the needs of the user. The most common lamellar armors from history were used by horse archers (eg Mongols, Samurai) who required higher degrees of movement and mobility than primarily melee fighters and thus had lower levels of protection. Roman/Byzantine cataphracts sometimes used lamellar armor instead of mail and those suits offered complete head to toe protection for the body.

I'm not really sure it's the right assumption.

In ideal scenario, horse archer only has one specific kind of motion he needs to perform to keep lobbing arrows at the enemy. Some movements may be theoretically completely shoot down without harm to archery.

While in melee, swinging spear, sword or something like that around against other melee weapons, maximal mobility would be generally desirable.

Weren't o yoroi, perhaps most distiintive Japanese armors, developed specifically for horse archery, and went out of use when they were deemed to hindering for everything else?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%8C-yoroi

With their huge shoulder guards, very rigid, box like cuirass and other quite overbuilt elements?



Most horse archers in history weren't wearing much armor, or any heavier armor, because they simply couldn't afford any. Composite bow in itself was likely big expense for millions of horse nomads.

[stoutstien]

I does irk me that full plate is always considered "heavy armor" in games when (very dependent on coverage) it is only slightly heavier than brigandine with a lot more protection and better distribution of that weight. The plate in 5e must be like 8/10 mm thick.

Canvas is heavy yo.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I does irk me that full plate is always considered "heavy armor" in games when (very dependent on coverage) it is only slightly heavier than brigandine with a lot more protection and better distribution of that weight. The plate in 5e must be like 8/10 mm thick.

Canvas is heavy yo.

"Heavy" is a bad word choice, plus some lingering ideas about weight of plate (using late period tournament plate as the touch point).

Personally, the "categories" are more about how you act while wearing it. Heavy armor being the "Wade in there and use the armor to deflect blows" archetype rather than the "armor is a backup for when dodging/etc don't work" archetype. With medium being the catch-all middle ground.

Heavy generally always covers torso + upper arms + thighs, and often has full coverage. Medium rarely has full coverage but usually covers more than just torso. Light generally covers torso.

Any/all of them may have a helmet, boots, and gauntlets, but heavy tends to integrate them into a cohesive package more.

Again, that's my head canon for translation between real armor and game armor.

[stoutstien]

"Heavy" is a bad word choice, plus some lingering ideas about weight of plate (using late period tournament plate as the touch point).

Personally, the "categories" are more about how you act while wearing it. Heavy armor being the "Wade in there and use the armor to deflect blows" archetype rather than the "armor is a backup for when dodging/etc don't work" archetype. With medium being the catch-all middle ground.

Heavy generally always covers torso + upper arms + thighs, and often has full coverage. Medium rarely has full coverage but usually covers more than just torso. Light generally covers torso.

Any/all of them may have a helmet, boots, and gauntlets, but heavy tends to integrate them into a cohesive package more.

Again, that's my head canon for translation between real armor and game armor.

Aye. It's also really difficult to model different types of strikes besides "i hit harder but less often" which makes it hard to see that difference. I have a few plate pieces I've made that are super hard (~500 BHN) and with minimal padding you hardly feel a thing until the energy dumped into it can't be soaked then it really hurts. It's like getting into a slow/fast collision with one of the older heavy body style cars.

Freaking crazy kids still doing full contact jousting.

[Maat Mons]

If a dude in ancient Japan were going into battle with a naginata as his primary weapon, what if any secondary weapons would he likely carry?

[stoutstien]

If a dude in ancient Japan were going into battle with a naginata as his primary weapon, what if any secondary weapons would he likely carry?

Can you narrow it down to a period? It was in use for a very long time as most polearms tend to be.

[Maat Mons]

I intend to use this to inform how I equip NPCs for a Pathfinder 1e game. Pathfinder has stats for katana and wakizashi, but not tachi or kodachi. So, probably late-ish? I’m honestly not clear on which time period Pathfinder is aiming for with their Eastern stuff.

[tyckspoon]

I intend to use this to inform how I equip NPCs for a Pathfinder 1e game. Pathfinder has stats for katana and wakizashi, but not tachi or kodachi. So, probably late-ish? I’m honestly not clear on which time period Pathfinder is aiming for with their Eastern stuff.

I don't mean to discourage the question in general just for information sake, but at the level of detail the game actually goes into it's all pretty much the same - the katana stats can pretty much cover any longer sword and wakizashi for shorter blades (and honestly having a separate stat line for the katana and wakizashi is probably unnecessary already, you can just relabel the shortsword/longsword/greatsword and/or the 'curved swords crit better' line to get basically the same results.)

.. and the simple fact that you are -aware- there is a difference in what the swords/secondary arms would look like or be labeled as in different eras suggests you have already put much more thought into it than the setting itself does - the equipment lists for Pathfinder ensures the world is an anachronistic soup of everything anyways. The time period it's aiming at is 'all of them.'

[stoutstien]

I intend to use this to inform how I equip NPCs for a Pathfinder 1e game. Pathfinder has stats for katana and wakizashi, but not tachi or kodachi. So, probably late-ish? I’m honestly not clear on which time period Pathfinder is aiming for with their Eastern stuff.

I haven't played much PF but I'm guessing they picked the most commonly recognisable names and stick them on stuff with little concern to keeping it historical or even accurate. sunnobi isn't used because Tonto has stuck in pop culture more than anything else.

[Cyber]

3. If one wanted to move quietly, is there a large difference in the effect of the armor on that (assuming you've taken precautions such as not wearing super shiny armor or carrying torches, etc).

According to this video of person checking noise output of different types of armor, you can move quietly even in plate armor. Running? Not so much.

And if you want to stab someone in a back quietly, you going to need extra steps like covering vambraces and greaves in some sort of fabric... And maybe wear your dedicated sneaking boots instead of sollerets.

[Maat Mons]

I've been reading a little about star forts. Ravelins have me a bit confused. How do you send reinforcements to one mid battle? If you have to retreat from one, how do you rejoin the main force?

[GloatingSwine]

I've been reading a little about star forts. Ravelins have me a bit confused. How do you send reinforcements to one mid battle? If you have to retreat from one, how do you rejoin the main force?

Through the trenchworks around the fort, which are vulnerable from above and so hard to hold in force.

Remember that a star fort implies that your warfare is muskets and cannons (the point of a star fort is that it has fewer flat surfaces for cannons to strike).

[Maat Mons]

Ah, that makes sense, thanks. I was interpreting the trenches I was seeing as dry moats. Well, I guess trenches and dry moats are kind of the same thing. I mean I was imagining them being used be solely to disrupt enemy movement, not to facility safe movement of your own forces.

I think some aspects of star fort design could have been useful even before the rise of firearms. Specifically, the avoidance of blind spots seems like a good enough reason for the stellated outline, even with just archery on the table.

[Telok]

I think some aspects of star fort design could have been useful even before the rise of firearms. Specifically, the avoidance of blind spots seems like a good enough reason for the stellated outline, even with just archery on the table.

That's why the projecting towers on castles were invented, to fire across the curtain wall without leaning over.

At https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conw...astle-0006.jpg
You can see each tower has a spot allowing someone to shoot parallel to the wall.

[Gnoman]

Ah, that makes sense, thanks. I was interpreting the trenches I was seeing as dry moats. Well, I guess trenches and dry moats are kind of the same thing. I mean I was imagining them being used be solely to disrupt enemy movement, not to facility safe movement of your own forces.

I think some aspects of star fort design could have been useful even before the rise of firearms. Specifically, the avoidance of blind spots seems like a good enough reason for the stellated outline, even with just archery on the table.

The big innovations of star forts is the composition of the walls. Against gunpowder weapons, tall walls of thick stone are incredibly vulnerable. Star forts evolved low walls with lots of packed earth to absorb cannonfire. However, against an opponent that lacks weapons of gunpowder, the older style of wall is superior. The height (and sheer sides) not only makes it far harder for people to get over the walls, but gives a commanding position for observation. Older castles were well designed to avoid excessive blind spots and pretty much every tactical factor conceivable to the designer - siege warfare is a brutally Darwinian process and it would not be uncommon to start remodeling if you heard about some other castle falling and looked into the vulnerability that allowed it.

[Maat Mons]

That doesn't quite eliminate the issue. You can use the curvature of one of the towers to shield yourself from the other towers.

[GloatingSwine]

That doesn't quite eliminate the issue. You can use the curvature of one of the towers to shield yourself from the other towers.

You do however have to be right at the base of the walls for that sort of protection, which is generally not a terribly helpful place to be otherwise*, because inconsiderate people on the tops of them are likely to drop things on you (heated sand, boiling water, or just rocks, I think even beehives were mentioned occasionally). Sometimes they had fighting platforms that extended over the sides of the walls and towers, and gaps (Machiculations) at the base of the crenellations to drop or shoot things downwards.

There is also likely to be some kind of earthwork making it difficult to just sort of hang out there (as you can see in the picture of Conwy Castle, standing at the base of the walls means standing on like a 60 degree slope).

*Even setting ladders for an assault if you were really really mad or desperate, you wouldn't try and put them right up to the wall, there's no stability in that, you want an angle of about 45-60 degrees to stop the enemy pushing them off quite as easily.

[Gnoman]

You do however have to be right at the base of the walls for that sort of protection, which is generally not a terribly helpful place to be otherwise*, because inconsiderate people on the tops of them are likely to drop things on you (heated sand, boiling water, or just rocks, I think even beehives were mentioned occasionally). Sometimes they had fighting platforms that extended over the sides of the walls and towers, and gaps (Machiculations) at the base of the crenellations to drop or shoot things downwards.

There is also likely to be some kind of earthwork making it difficult to just sort of hang out there (as you can see in the picture of Conwy Castle, standing at the base of the walls means standing on like a 60 degree slope).

*Even setting ladders for an assault if you were really really mad or desperate, you wouldn't try and put them right up to the wall, there's no stability in that, you want an angle of about 45-60 degrees to stop the enemy pushing them off quite as easily.

In a pre-gunpowder world, there's also nothing you can do there to affect the wall itself. A ram or bore needs space to operate and is extremely slow, mining operations are started much further away to allow for larger work crews, and those are the only personal-scale tools that can do anything at all to a castle. Even if you tuck in that close and successfully avoid attack, there's absolutely nothing you can do except wait for the cover of darkness to run away.